Trending on /r/cars: 2019 Shelby GT500 to receive Ford's new N/A 7.0L V8 w/ DI

Grimace427 said:

Specific output does not scale with displacement. It is far easier to get 100+hp/liter when you have a very small displacement because as you increase the engine's displacement you also increase the rotating mass, reciprocating mass, internal friction, and pumping losses. All these things work against the engine's ability to make power.

Click to expand...

Larger bores mean better breathing, which could offset the frictional and inertial losses. If Chev pumped 505hp out of a 7 litre ten years ago I'm sure Ford could get over 600, and 650 naturally aspirated horses would win many people over. On the other hand Voodoo got to 101hp/l courtesy of fpc, which is something the 7 litre wouldn't have, so 650hp could be where it finds its limits.

Also, the efficiency displayed with the latest Coyote iteration suggests Ford wouldn't have any dramas pumping out close 600ft-lbs from an atmo 7 litre. That there would be insane.

Agreed. The 7L Chevy was a good ole pushrodder though and not as efficient as a DOHC setup with valve adjustment and DI. And, of course, Ford would spray the bores for even more efficiency. I'm sure 100hp/L could be obtained with modern techno, and still meet emissions.

I would prefer this setup with the V-charge, which given the CVT, could theoretically aid in lower emissions at low-throttle input moments.

DrumReaper said:

Agreed. The 7L Chevy was a good ole pushrodder though and not as efficient as a DOHC setup with valve adjustment and DI. And, of course, Ford would spray the bores for even more efficiency. I'm sure 100hp/L could be obtained with modern techno, and still meet emissions.

I would prefer this setup with the V-charge, which given the CVT, could theoretically aid in lower sessions at low-throttle input moments.

Click to expand...

I'd be very impressed if they could hit 100hp with a large displacement like that.

The ls7 also has titanium rods. If Ford didn't do this for the voodoo, they absolutely won't for another large displacement monster.

I can see a 600hp iteration which is cool.

GM couldn't pull off their emmisions, not and power goal with their new LT7 DI engine. A Shame.

Understood, but there's been a ton of good techno since the 2014 to use in a big displacement engine.

Darkane said:

I'd be very impressed if they could hit 100hp with a large displacement like that.

The ls7 also has titanium rods. If Ford didn't do this for the voodoo, they absolutely won't for another large displacement monster.

I can see a 600hp iteration which is cool.

GM couldn't pull off their emmisions, not and power goal with their new LT7 DI engine. A Shame.

Click to expand...

Voodoo was initially designed to make 600hp and Rev to 9k but they decided to peg it back due to costs. That's the difference between having a GT350 that is affordable and Z28 that couldn't sell.

Falc'man said:

Voodoo was initially designed to make 600hp and Rev to 9k but they decided to peg it back due to costs. That's the difference between having a GT350 that is affordable and Z28 that couldn't sell.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Could you provide some literature on it?

I think they overachieved their goals. 8k and 500hp initially.

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/...-naturally-aspirated-horsepower-on-dyno-video

Interesting...

Falc'man said:

Larger bores mean better breathing, which could offset the frictional and inertial losses. If Chev pumped 505hp out of a 7 litre ten years ago I'm sure Ford could get over 600, and 650 naturally aspirated horses would win many people over. On the other hand Voodoo got to 101hp/l courtesy of fpc, which is something the 7 litre wouldn't have, so 650hp could be where it finds its limits.

Also, the efficiency displayed with the latest Coyote iteration suggests Ford wouldn't have any dramas pumping out close 600ft-lbs from an atmo 7 litre. That there would be insane.

Click to expand...

Larger bore also means more piston surface area and thus friction. Not to mention larger bore means heavier pistons. For racing engines this can be overcome with expensive materials and more frequent maintenance/rebuilds, however we are talking about production engines.

If Ford got 600ft-lbs of torque from an N/A 7.0 it would be from a low-revving truck engine and not a performance car high-RPM model. If Ford went for a big displacement modern performance engine for the Mustang and made it rev I would bet peak torque would not go much over 500ft-lbs(which would still be awesome) and it would make that torque higher in the powerband than you would assume all in the name of making peak power.

I'm more impressed with the Mercedes/AMG M159/159 6.2l engine put into the SLS that made anywhere from 525hp up to 631hp in their Black Series and revved over 8,000rpm. That engine alone costs more than a GT350R and was not the longest lasting engine AMG ever produced. Their camshafts liked to dig their own graves in the cylinder head bearing surfaces.

Twin Turbo said:

Out of interest, do you know which Shelby Regional Director this was?

Click to expand...

Dubbs Farris

DrumReaper said:

Dude, I'm well aware of the car and who puts it together... yes, SA built a 1000hp car, but the point is that 1k HP is looking like the new beast benchmark, while 800hp is becoming the factory baseline.

Ford needs to get its crap in order.

Click to expand...

What car makes over 700HP besides the Hellcat? How is 800 the new factory baseline now?

DrumReaper said:

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/...-naturally-aspirated-horsepower-on-dyno-video

Interesting...

Click to expand...

Why?

Grimace427 said:

If Ford got 600ft-lbs of torque from an N/A 7.0 it would be from a low-revving truck engine and not a performance car high-RPM model.

Click to expand...

Ford got 429 ftlbs from 5.2 liters in the N/A Voodoo with port injection. That translates to 578 ftlbs in a 7 liter - assuming the engine torque can directly scale.

I don't think 600 ftlbs is out of the realm of possibility for 7 liters, especially if it was DI.

Hack said:

Ford got 429 ftlbs from 5.2 liters in the N/A Voodoo with port injection. That translates to 578 ftlbs in a 7 liter - assuming the engine torque can directly scale.

I don't think 600 ftlbs is out of the realm of possibility for 7 liters, especially if it was DI.

Click to expand...

If Ford wanted to focus on max torque(making it have even higher specific torque than the Voodoo(and no torque also does not scale with displacement)) I'm sure they could do it, but it would be at the cost of RPM's and thus maximum power.

Grimace427 said:

If Ford wanted to focus on max torque(making it have even higher specific torque than the Voodoo(and no torque also does not scale with displacement)) I'm sure they could do it, but it would be at the cost of RPM's and thus maximum power.

Click to expand...

I'd beg to differ.

The highest tq/L is the mighty 4.5 in the Italia. It doesn't sacrifice high end power, but it is also FPC. The 7L will not be.

That said, we can safely use 80tq/l and see the 7L produce 560ft/lbs and still see 7000 rpm with a peak of 600-625hp.

Darkane said:

That said, we can safely use 80tq/l and see the 7L produce 560ft/lbs and still see 7000 rpm with a peak of 600-625hp.

Click to expand...

Those look like great numbers to me. I'd be a buyer for sure. Ford...make it happen!

Hack said:

Ford got 429 ftlbs from 5.2 liters in the N/A Voodoo with port injection. That translates to 578 ftlbs in a 7 liter - assuming the engine torque can directly scale.

I don't think 600 ftlbs is out of the realm of possibility for 7 liters, especially if it was DI.

Click to expand...

When you base it off the new Coyote it is even higher.

Grimace I acknowledged the extra frictional drag and more rotating mass earlier. That is correct; the more of everything you have means the percentage loss will be greater. Hence the 3 cylinder 1.5 being favoured over the 4 cylinder 1.5.

What I am trying to point out is Ford has managed to extract a lot more from Coyote than any other manufacturer with their production, large volume engines. Currently sitting at 114Nm/litre this value would increase with the larger heads of a big-bore engine, provided all things being equal. The parasitic losses aren't as detrimental to efficiency until you start exploring the upper rpms.

As an example the LS7's specific torque increased from the base LS3's 88Nm/l to 91Nm/l. Point is efficiency doesn't necessarily decrease with increase of capacity. Without the use of lighter more exotic materials that value should at least stay the same, considering the better breathing could be offset with the extra losses coming from extra friction and mass.

Truck engines aren't designed with more specific torque but with the focus on durability and low revs. An example of that is the Coyote itself having less torque in the F150 than it does in.Mustang guise.

I'm trying to keep everyone's feet on the ground. I could easily make some mean jokes about the wild fantasies going on in this thread but I'd rather point out the issues with people's guesses with specific points than do that.